User talk:DrFleischman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Collabera Wikipedia Page[edit]

Thanks so much for your help with the Collabera page! The original was very out of date, and all over the place - I did my best to get it up to speed. It was great to have someone with more experience to help improve on what I did. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MushuNeak (talkcontribs) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. What's your connection with LaesaMajestas? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
We know each other. MushuNeak (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
How? I hope you aren't coordinating your edits. Also, please review our guideline on conflicts of interest.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty aggressive (and personal) line of questioning; I'm sure I'm not the only one here who knows another Wikipedian. Was there something that suggests I'm not working towards Wikipedia's best interests? I'm happy to learn from your advice, if I'm not doing something right. In the meantime, I'll ask LaesaMajestas to avoid pages that I've contributed to, and do the same on my side. MushuNeak (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just that I was really struck by the similarities between your user pages in combination with the overlap between your editing interests. If you're aware of our guidelines on such matters and you stick to your promise then I won't bring it up again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Understood and appreciated. I hadn't read through that guideline, so this has been helpful. MushuNeak (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, on to more pleasant things. If you're interested in further improving Collabera, I'd suggest refactoring the History and Recognition sections to be less chronological and listy. E.g. for the History section create a section called "Organization" (for leadership, headquarters, etc.) and another called "Acquisitions." For recognition, lump the related stuff together (e.g. both American Banker items, both KellyOCG items). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And remove items for which you can't find sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The Collabera page was a disaster when I got there -- I was probably a little too ambitious to start with that as my first overhaul. Give me a few days to take your advice and see what I can do with it; formatting the recognition section will be an interesting challenge in particular -- perhaps you have an example in mind that I can model from? If not, I'll poke around and see what I can find. I definitely appreciate the help and advice. :-) MushuNeak (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in particular to model from. Most articles are written in a prose style rather than bullet point style. No problem about the evolution of the article, everything is a work in progress. Your contributions thus far are appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Hah! I like tea. I'll going out to lunch but will be back to discuss my concern further this afternoon. Thanks! Capitalismojo (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

So, I'm back. There are two refs at the article one (in passing in an obit) refers to conservative as a conservative version of the Council on Foundations. The other refers to the org as "politically conservative" but again is a passing ref to this organization. I note that nothing in our article about the Council on Foundations suggests that it is liberal. I see no indications that either organization is a "political organization", and find the refs weak support for calling a non-profit "politically conservative". Hence my "weak tea" edit summary. I'll discuss this on the article talk page of course, but I wanted to explain my edit in some detail here first. It wasn't a criticism of your edits, just my thoughts on the refs. I hope all is well with you. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, please transclude to article talk and I'll respond there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


I'm sorry for casting aspersions. I guess I was irritated that Capitalismojo reverted with no discussion other than to tell me I responded in the wrong place. But I still think my edit, though minor, is still valid, given ALEC's penchant for being caught out at less than ethical behavior. But I shouldn't have lashed out. Sorry. Gil gosseyn (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, as Capitalismojo and I are entitled to ours. There is no obligation to discuss before an initial revert; the bold-revert-discuss cycle is widely accepted here. If you wish to retract portions of your comment on the article talk page you can do so by using strikethroughs using s tags, for example
<s>text you want to strike</s>
produces text you want to strike. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)